Notes:This 1983
presentation of the Sense-Making approach is now out of date but still provides
a foundation for interested readers. For more up-to-date works, see the various
bibliographic listings on this on-line site.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of
the Sense-Making approach to research--its assumptions, methods, and results to
date. The intent is to provide this overview in a semi-outline form to
facilitate its speedy use by the reader. No attempt is made in this paper to
fully document all studies done using the Sense-Making approach to date of the
extensive literature reviews on which development of the approach has been
based. This extensive documentation is included in an upcoming book entitled THE
HUMAN SIDE OF INFORMATION: PERSPECTIVES FOR COMMUNICATING and in briefer form in
a series of papers and reports published to date. (1)

RootsThe
term "Sense-Making" is a label for a coherent set of concepts and methods used
in a now 8-year programmatic effort to study how people construct sense of their
worlds and, in particular, how they construct information needs and uses for
information in the process of sense-making. Since sense-making is central to all
communicating situations, (whether they be intra-personal, interpersonal, mass,
cross-cultural, societal, or inter-national) the Sense-Making approach is seen
as having wide applicability.

In the most general sense, sense-making
(that which is the focus of study in the Sense-Making approach) is defined as
behavior, both internal (i.e. cognitive) and external (i.e. procedural) which
allows the individual to construct and design his/her movement through
time-space. Sense-makingbehavior, thus, is communicating behavior.
Information seeking and use is central to sense-making (as it similarly is seen
as central to all communicating) but what is meant by these terms is radically
different than what is typically meant in the positivistic tradition.
(2)

The Sense-Making concepts and methods will be detailed below. The
purpose of this section is to describe Sense-Making's philosophic and
espistemological roots. What is most unusual about the Sense-Making approach is
that it can not be easily labeled in terms of its allegiance to one or another
currently accepted research thrust. Rather, it stands between some traditional,
frequently illusionary and restraining polarities.

If one thinks of the
stereotypic model of so-called quantitative empirical inquiry, one thinks in
such terms as mechanistic, static, neutral, absolutist, analytic, and, above
all, positivistic. If, on the other hand, one thinks of the stereotypic model of
so-called qualitative inquiry, one thinks in such terms as humanistic, dynamic,
relativistic, contextually-bound, involved, constructivistic, holistic.
Sense-Making research, however, rests of concepts and methods which are clearly
quantitative and analytic and yet can be described with all attributes usually
reserved only for qualitative inquiry.

In terms of allegiance to existing
work, Sense-Making owes its debt to the writings of:

Researchers of cognition who have focused with
quantitative approaches on how people construct meaning, including portions of
the work of Bruner and Piaget. (3)

Page 4

Philosophers and others concerned with the constraints
of traditional science and alternatives, including among others Bronowski,
Kuhn, Habermas. (4)

Third world critical researchers, usually rooted in
Critical Theory, who have found the concepts and methods of communication as
developed in the logical positivistic model both unuseful and troublesome in
their contexts, including among others Ascroft, Beltran, Rolings.
(5)

The handful of communication theorists and researchers
who have taken a situational, constructivistic approach to studying
communication as behavior, notably Carter and researchers whose work owes a
debt to his core ideas about the human mandate to construct ideas to
bridge gaps as a means of dealing with ever- present discontinuities in
reality. Central to this view is the idea that communicating behavior is
gap-bridging behavior. (6)

The handful of theorists focusing on psychological
therapy who have also taken a situational, constructivistic approach to
understanding why a constructing species (i. e. humans) sometimes behave like
a non-constructing species. Particularly important here have been Jackins and
Roberts. (7)

Core conceptual premisesThe Sense-Making
approach rests on a set of core theoretic premises. These premises have been
described in different ways in various of the past works. This listing below
represents the most recent and most detailed attempt to date. As a set, the
premises present baseline assumptions about the nature of reality, the human
relationship to that reality, the nature of information, human seeking of and
use of information, the nature of communicating, and the most useful ways to
research communicating behavior. (8)

Sense-Making starts at bedrock with an assumption that
reality is neither complete nor constant but rather filled with fundamental
and pervasive discontinuities or gaps. Resting heavily at this point on
the work of Carter, Sense-Making assumes that the discontinuity or gap
condition is generalizeable both because all things in reality are not
connected and because things are constantly changing. (9)

A second bedrock assumption of Sense-Making is that
information is not a thing that exists independent of and external to human
beings but rather is a product of human observing. This is seen as
applying equally to "direct" observations of reality as well as to
observations of the observations made by others (i.e. the stuff usually called
"information".) In both contexts, the observations are never direct because
the observing is mediated by human minds and those minds guide the selection
of what to observe, how to observe, and the interpretations of the products of
the observing.

Since it is assumed that all information producing is
internally guided and since it is generally accepted that all human observing
is

Page 5

constrained, Sense-Making further assumes that all
information is subjective. The term "constrained" is used purposely.
"Biased" is not used because it assumes an external standard against which the
observings can be judged. "Limited" is not used because it assumes that the
observing is trapped, unable to be responsive to changing conditions and break
out of old patterns of structures. Clearly, if observing were trapped in this
way, there would be no invention. And, certainly, those who try to
differentiate humans from other species frequently include among the most
telling human characteristics, the human capacities to invent, create, and
respond flexibly to changing conditions. The constraints on human observing
are seen as four-fold.

1) The limitations on human physiology.
As a species, we appear at this point in our collective history, at least to
be unable to make some observations of which other species are
capable.

2) The limitation of present time-space. Since it is
assumed that we are all bound in time-space, what we can observe at a given
moment is constrained by where we are.

3) The limitation of past
time-space. We come from different histories and our observations today
rest, at least in part, on our pasts. In one sense, our historical differences
account for our great species variety and enable us, via communicating, to
achieve fuller pictures of the "circle of reality" enriched by wider spectrums
of observations. In a second sense, our past-time space can rigidify (become
frozen time-space) when, as much literature in psychotherapy suggests, our
past experiences lead us to treat present time-space as identical to the
past.

4) The limitation of future time-space. We are going to
different places and our observations today rest, at least in part on where we
focus in the future. In addition, the general discontinuity principle suggests
that our observations today apply only to today and not to
tomorrow.

Given the assumptions above, the Sense-Making approach
posits information seeking and use not as "Transmitting" activity, as has been
traditionally assumed. Rather, information seeking and use are posited as
"constructing" activities--as personal creating of sense. It is assumed
that all information is simply the sense made by individuals at specific
moments in time-space. Some "information" becomes agreed upon and is termed
"fact" for a given time-frame at least. Others are controversial and are
called "opinion" or "delusion" depending on the socio-political context and/or
the charity of the observer. Sense-Making assumes that this constructing is
what is involved in information sharing interactions no matter what the
context. Information sharing is seen as the successive modifications of
internal pictures of reality--a series of constructings and
reconstructings.

Page 6

Because the focus of Sense-Making is on constructings,
research is directed to look not solely or primarily at things that
traditionally have been defined as "communication." These traditional
approaches, have focused primarily on the transmitting of so-called objective,
external, information from knowledgeable experts (e.g. scholars, educators,
journalists) to those less knowledgeable (i.e. non-experts). Because of this,
traditional approaches have focused not on constructing behavior but rather on
source-using (and, in most recent work, networking). Sense-Making, in
contrast, focuses on how individuals use the observations of others as well as
their own observations to construct their pictures of reality and use these
pictures to guide behavior.

In the Sense-Making approach it is assumed that
sense-making behavior is responsive to and mandated by changing situational
conditions. Traditional positivistic research
has looked for constant, across time-space patterns in human communication
behavior. In doing so, the research has focused almost entirely on behaviors
rigidified (or habitualized) in at least two senses. In the first sense, the
rigidities are those imposed by external socio-economic-political structures.
Thus, for example, many population sub-groups do not use libraries or public
affairs media. And, evidence shows, those who run these institutions are
typically unaware of how their institutions do not address needs of these
sub-groups. In this sense, then, the research has focused on behaviors
rigidified by external conditions. In the second sense, traditional
positivistic research in searching for across time-space constancies in
behavior has searched for exactly the kinds of behaviors which are not
flexible and responsive to changing conditions, those most likely to be
frozen. Such an approach has been able to observe the variety and creativity
with which people universally respond to their ever-changing life struggles.
Such an approach ignores the mandate of the human condition -- to make sense
in a discontinuous, constantly changing universe when complete sense is not
available as "complete information." Sense-Making, in contrast, assumes,
first, that sense-making behaviors are frequent given the mandate of the human
condition to bridge gaps. Second, it assumes that these behaviors are
responsive to changing situational conditions.

Directly deriveable from the preceding premise is the
idea that sense-making behavior can be predicted more successfully within
the framework of a model which focuses on changing situations as predictors
rather than such constant across time-space attributes as so-called
personally characteristics or demography. The model changes from the
traditionally accepted "if....then" form to a "then...then" form. The question
becomes: what situational conditions will relate to what sense-making
behaviors? Prediction is still seen as a relevant concern but the prediction
moves from attempts to isolate consistent patterns of individual behavior that
repeat themselves across time-space to the search for patterns of human
sense-making responsive to changing situations.

Also related to the above is the idea that what is
being predicted is not how people are moved by messages but rather how people
move to make

Page 7

sense of messages. Thus, Sense-Making searches for
patterns in how people construct sense rather than for mechanistic
input-output relationships. Sense-Making observes rather than assumes
connections between situations and information needs, between information
exposed to and uses.

Sense-Making assumes that all people live in time and
space (although the meanings ascribed to these are assumed to differ). Because
of this, Sense-Making assumes that there are universals of sense-making
that will allow more successful prediction and explanation than has been
possible in the traditional positivistic approach. Drawing heavily on Carter,
Sense-Making assumes that the key to identifying these universals lies in
focusing on the human mandate to move through time-space. This then draws
attention to the ways in which movement can be stopped (as a perspective fro
looking at situational conditions), the kinds of gaps humans need to bridge in
order to keep moving (as a perspective for looking at sense-making or
information needs), and the different ways in which people assess success in
gap-bridging (as a perspective for looking at information use or effects of
information-sharing and communicating). It should be noted that while the last
sentence uses the term "effects", the effects referred to are not observer
imposed but mover-created.

As suggested above, the Sense-Making approach assumes
that sense-making behavior is situationally and contextually bound and rooted
in present, past, and future time-space. Sense-Making attempts to address
issues raised by many Critical Theorists. Sense-Making assumes, for one, that
studying communicating behaviors in the context of current communication
systems leads to distorted views of communication potential because most
of our institutions are rigidified inventions, being at best suitable to past
situational conditions. Most communication structures are more related to the
age of the guillotine (when information sharing was low, homogeneity assumed
right, communicating potential constrained, and authority assumed expert)
rather than the age of technology (with high information sharing, assumed
heterogeneity, relatively open communicating, and the continued erosion of
"expertise"). In the age of the guillotine, procedures for communicating were
relatively unimportant because the notion of "circling reality" was deemed
neither necessary nor desirable. The concept of "circling reality" is used in
Sense-Making as a convenient way of referring to the necessity of obtaining a
variety of perspectives in order to get a better, more stable view of
"reality" based on a wide spectrum of observations from a wide base of points
in time-space.

Sense-Making assumes that effective "circling of
reality" is not only desirable (i.e. valued) but necessary given the considerable body of evidence showing what happens to
systems unable to assess and respond flexibly to changing reality. Since
current systems and research on them assume essentially an expertise
transmission system, little research has led to the systematic development and
testing of alternative communicating structures and procedures--i.e. means for
effectively sharing and using information.

Page 8

The idea of a truly responsive information system
designed to serve user needs is actualized primarily at the expense of
individual professional burn-out. Information systems (whether mandated to
collect, store, retrieve, or disseminate information) all rest on
expertise-transmission assumptions and, thus, are not supported by
institutionalized structures and procedures for what Sense-Making calls
information sharing and use--i.e. the successive constructings and
reconstructings of sense. While much is said about the need for "bottom-up"
communication system designs, little is known systematically about their
implementation.

Sense-Making assumes that useful communication
research needs to inform the practice of communicating and that this requires
that the researcher involve him/herself actively in communication
invention. In beginning to systematically
develop alternative structures and procedures, it is assumed that at least
three research thrusts are needed. One, as suggested by Critical Theory, lies
in understanding how current systems constrain communicating. A second, lies
in understanding how individuals construct sense both inside and outside of
structural constraints. A third lies in inventing communicating alternatives
and assessing their utility. Sense-Making research has focused on the latter
two thrusts and is enriched by the first.

The Sense-Making approach acknowledges the utility of
observer assessments of situational conditions and the idea from Critical
Theory that there are structural constraints which limit sense-making and
communicating which are out of consciousness to many people. Sense-Making
assumes, however, that there is utility in starting with the person and
finding systematic ways of having individuals share their observations about
all manner of situations, including those they see as structurally
constrained. It is further assumed that one reason why research focusing
on individual behavior rather than structures has been so unfruitful in the
past has been that it has searched for across time space constancies. Based on
this, it is assumed that research focusing on situational contingencies is
theoretically consistent with a concern for structures and expected to yield
results useful in improving and altering structures.

Given this last assumption, the Sense-Making approach
makes a firm distinction between observer and actor views of reality
suggesting that in the studying sense-making the researcher must adhere
consistently to actor-perspectives. This is not meant to limit potential.
The perspectives of various actors moving in given structural condition could
be compared, for example, thus illuminating the portrait of sense-making in
that particular condition. What is important here, however, is that the
researcher not set the boundaries of the situation in terms of any particular
observer's definition.

Page 9

Current Sense-Making modelThe Sense-Making approach, when implemented in both research
designs and applications at this point in time, rests on the following
model:

Figure 1

Current model used in Sense-Making
studies.

SITUATIONS-------GAPS-------USES

Sense-Making studies and applications, thus,
have all incorporated two or more of the following:

SITUATIONS: The
time-space contexts at which sense is constructed.

GAPS: The
gaps seen as needing bridging, translated in most studies as "information
needs" or the questions people have as construct sense and move through
time-space.

USES: The uses to which the individual puts newly
created sense, translated in most studies as information helps and
hurts.

SITUATIONS are included because it is
posited that sense-making is situational.

GAPS are included
because they are assumed to be what sense-making is all about.

USES
are included because Sense-Making focuses on constructing and does not
assume a mechanistic connection between information and
use.

Each of the three dimensions labeled above identifies
a category of variables. The specific conceptual and operational definitions of
typical measures in each category will be described in a later section below and
are listed in Appendix B.

Further elaborations have been developed for
each of the three dimensions but in all studies the above has formed the core
focus. The model has also been extended to practice situations as well. The use
of "three" dimensions has been seen as particularly appropriate both in the
realm of practice as well as research because it involves "triangulating"
subjectivity. The idea here is that since different people create sense
differently, when one attempts to understand the sense made by another, it is
useful to assess three points as a minimal basis for co-orienting.

Page 10

Further, the Sense-Making model
assumes that the three-points specified in the Sense-Making model are examples
of the kind of "universals" specified in the conceptual premises. Thus, it is
stated as assumption that people who are sense-making have gaps in situations
and assess the value of information, regardless of how constructed, in terms of
the uses to which they can put it.

Methods of data collectionA major portion of the effort in developing the Sense-Making approach to
date has been directed to the invention of alternative means for interviewing
respondents. A variety of techniques have been developed . They can be
summarized as four techniques with variations.

Micro-Moment Time-Line
Interview This is the core technique of the Sense-Making approach. It
involves asking a respondent to detail what happened in a situation step-by-step
in terms of what happened first, second, and so on. Then, for each step (called
a Time-Line step), the respondent is asked what questions he or she had, what
things he/she needed to find out, learn, come to understand, unconfuse, or make
sense of. These two elements form the core of the Time-Line. In-depth analyses
are then of each question asked as mandated by study
purposes.

Micro-Moment Time-Line Interviews have been applied in a wide
variety of contexts. Examples included in Appendix A are:

EXAMPLE #1: a cancer patient on a chemotherapy
treatment situation

EXAMPLE #2: a blood donor on most recent
donation

EXAMPLE #3: an undergraduate on a recent
interpersonal conflict

EXAMPLE #4: a college student on a recent college
class

EXAMPLE #5: a development disables=d adult on a
recent difficult situation

EXAMPLE #6: a 5-year-old girl and a l0-year-old boy
on their best remembered or most important recent watching of a TV
show

EXAMPLE #7: a minority college student on a recent
difficult situation at college

EXAMPLE #8: a college student on a recent paper
writingexperience

EXAMPLE #9: an l8-year resident of the State of
California on a recent troublesome situation

EXAMPLE #10: 4 southeast Asian refugees living in
Seattle on recent visits to hospitals and clinics

EXAMPLE #11: a college freshman on describing a
recent media day

Each application of the Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview
involves its own adjustments. What all have in common is an attempt to secure
from the respondent a description of at least two dimensions of the three-part
SITUATIONS-GAPS-USES model and to do so in such a way that the data for each
dimension is tied to a micro-moment, a specific situational moment in the
time-space.

Page 11

To illustrate this, a description of the structure of the
most detailed use of the technique will help. For the l982 study of cancer
patients (Dervin, Nilan, Kranz, and Wittet l982), each patient was instructed as
follows:

1. To select a situation during their chemotherapy and
radiation treatment.

2. To describe what happened first in that situation
and to list the questions he/she had at that step. To then describe what
happened second and list questions for that step. To continue this process
through all Time-Line steps. In this process, the interviewer recorded
Time-Line steps on blue file cards and the accompanying questions on white
file cards, one per card.

3. To then collect and shuffle the question cards if 9
or more questions resulted and to select eight randomly for in-depth
analysis.

4. To then describe each of the up to eight questions
on the following dimensions (abbreviated below, see EXAMPLE #1 in Appendix A
for full details).

Situation measures

a) What were you trying to do when you asked this
question?

b) Did you see yourself as blocked or hindered when
youasked this question? How?

c) Is there anything else you can tell us that explains
why you asked this question.

Gaps measures

d) Did this question stand alone or was it related to
other questions? How?

e) How many other people in similar situations would
ask?

f) How easy did it seem to get an answer?
Why?

g) Did the ease change? How? Why?

h) How important was getting an answer?

i ) Did the importance ever change? How?
Why?

j ) Did you ask the question out loud? If no, why
not?

k) Did you get an answer? When?

l ) Was the answer complete or partial? Why?

m) How did you get an answer?

Uses measures

n) Did you expect the answer to help? If got answer:
did it help in ways expected or other ways?

o) Did you expect the answer to hurt? If got answer:
did it hurt in ways expected or other ways?

For this application, then, each of eight questions was
analyzed in extensive detail. In other studies (EXAMPLES #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
all questions (no matter how many) were analyzed in detail.

Page 12

Variations on the detailed Micro-Moment Time-Line
Interview format described above are shown in other examples:

EXAMPLE #9: In this application, the core Time-Line
consisting of steps and questions was elicited but detailed analyses of
questions were done only on the "most important" question. This allowed a
briefer phone interview to be done.

EXAMPLE #l0: In this application, the interviews
elicited general situation descriptions and then questions respondents had in
those situations. Interviewers then probed to get Micro-Moment descriptions of
the specific situations which led to each question being asked.

EXAMPLE #11: In this application, respondents were
asked to focus in on specific times during a "media day" and describe their
situations at that time and their media use at that time.

Helps/Hurts ChainingThe primary way in which uses has been operationalized in
Sense-Making research has been in terms of how respondents have seen information
as helping (facilitating) or hurting (blocking). In the early stages, it was
simplistically assumed that one of two questions to the respondent would elicit
their helps/hurts and show how they constructed the connection between the
message and its use for them. The data, however, had its own inductive force
and, as a result, two alternative techniques have been developed both of which
involve chaining helps or hurts. Briefly, what this means is asking the
respondent to show how each successive help related to yet another help. If a
respondent says, for example, that a TV show helped him relax, the interviewer
asks "And, how did that help?" Respondents are instructed to end the chaining at
any time where they think it ends. The two versions of chaining
include:

Straight Line Chaining: Here, the interviewer asks the
respondent "And, how did that help?" for each successive help and "And, how
did that hurt?" for each successive hurt. An example of this is included as
EXAMPLE #12 in Appendix A.

Complex Chaining: Here, the respondent is told that
information (or an event) may lead to both helps and/or hurts and that any
given help or hurt may lead in turn to both helps and/or hurts. An example of
this is included as EXAMPLE #13 in Appendix B.

Of the two methods, respondent and interviewer reports
suggest that #l3 is more valid but that #12 has its utility particularly in
situations where interviewing brevity is required and where information uses are
more straightforward. Specific study of these issues is on the Sense-Making
research agenda.

Close-ended Sense-Making InterviewAfter eight years of entirely open-ended research, it was
decided that enough inductive work had been done to develop a close-ended
approach to data collection specifically for hypothesis testing

Page 13

situations. In using this close-ended instrument,
respondents are first asked to anchor themselves in terms of a real-life
situation. This can be either a Micro-Moment or a Total Situation. The former,
of course, is preferred in the context of Sense-Making premises. In one
variation, a total Time-Line is elicited and then respondents are asked to focus
on only the "most important" step. Or, in another variation, a set of parameters
for choosing a situation are given to the respondent (for example, chose a
recent situation in which you saw yourself as facing a barrier, being of higher
status than others, and having open communication available to
you).

After focusing on a real-life situation, respondents are usually
asked to describe the situation briefly and give their reasons for selecting it
to meet the criteria. This step allows checks to be made of whether respondents
used criteria in the same way as the researchers.

At this point,
respondents are asked to rate on scales from 1 to 7 the extent to which they saw
themselves in the designated situation as seeing the situation in specific ways,
having specific questions, and wanting specific helps. The close-ended items for
situation perceptions questions-helps are all derived from the many content
analyses done on other data bases. An example of a Close-Ended Sense-Making
Interview is included as EXAMPLE #l4 in Appendix A.

Message Q/ing InterviewFor this technique, the Sense-Making approach is combined with
Carter's stopping technique (Carter, Ruggels, Jackson, and Heffner l983) in
order to tap sense-making during printed message reading. In the use of this
technique, respondents are asked to read a message and stop everywhere they have
a question (i.e. something they want to learn, understand, make sense of,
unconfuse, or find out). The point of their stop is indicated in the text with a
/ as is standard in Carter's stopping. Then, an in-depth analysis is conducted
of each question asked. Typical dimensions have included assessments of the
questions connection to the respondent's life situations, rating of question
importance, judgments of whether the question is ever answered in the message,
judgments of the completeness of the answer, and reports of expected and actual
helps and hurts from answers. An example of Message Q/ing is included as EXAMPLE
#l5 in Appendix A.

Regardless of the specific data collecting technique
uses, all Sense-Making data collection approaches share some features in
common.

LONGER THAN AVERAGE INTERVIEW TIMES. Micro-Moment Time
Line interviews typically average 60 minutes, in on study averaged 120. Even
phone interviews, usually thought to have a maximum range of l5 minutes have
successfully lasted an average of 25.

HIGH RESPONDENT INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT. This is
indicated, for example, in unusually high interest among respondents in
obtaining study results. In the cancer patient study, for example, 90% of
respondents requested results. This is also indicated in the many spontaneous
as well as solicited responses from respondents on the value of the kind of
self-analysis the Sense-Making interviewing

Page 14

techniques require. Favorable responses have been
obtained even for close-ended approaches. Sample comments are included in
Appendix C.

HIGH INTERVIEWER INTEREST. With few exceptions,
interviewers report high interest and lack of interviewing boredom. In
addition, they almost universally report that doing the interviews helped them
appreciate people better and gave them new communicating skills. Examples of
these comments are also included in Appendix C.

HIGH USE OF CONTENT-FREE INTERVIEWING STRUCTURE.
Sense-Making assumes that it is appropriate in the interviewing context to
explicitly provide respondents with an anchor or a context within which they
are responding. For Sense-Making, this context is typified by the Time-Line a
series of questions which include the content of the assumptions made by
Sense-Making (i.e. that we are mandated to make sense in time-space, that we
get stopped in situations, that we have different uses for information) but as
little other content as possible.

HIGH USE OF RESPONDENT TRAINING. In line with the
above, Sense-Making also assumes that it is appropriate to train respondents
in the use of the interviewing structure so that respondent and researcher are
co-orienting in the same frame. In order to safeguard against too strict an
imposition of structure, Sense-Making studies frequently repeat the admonition
that respondents should answer to represent their situations and their
thinking. Since the researcher's questions addressed to the respondent are
virtually content-free (except as noted above), the respondent is free to
fill-in to represent his/her situation and thinking. One variation of the high
respondent training is the frequent use made in Sense-Making studies,
particularly with college student respondents, of
self-interviews.

Sense-Making variablesAs noted above, the Sense-Making model focus on three classes of
measures: SITUATIONS -GAPS -USES. The primary concern in constructing measures
in each class to date has been to identify dimensions of sense-making that are
useful and valid and as content-free (in the sense suggested above) as possible.
The focus has varied in each of the three classes.

SITUATIONS. The
concern in this class has been to identify the different ways in which
respondents see situations that predict information seeking (i.e. question
asking, gap seeing) and information uses (i.e. helps/hurts). OVERVIEW #l in
Appendix B lists all the different situational measures used to date. These
include:

Appendix B includes definitions of each. Of these
measures, the one most central to Sense-Making approaches to date has been
Situation Movement State--a measure that taps the different qualitative ways
in which the respondent sees his/her movement through time-space blocked.
Sense-Making assumes that it is movement blocks that give rise to
question-asking (i.e. information seeking). The different Situation Movement
States are all seen as different ways of being stopped in movement through
time-space. For example, being stopped at a decision point means having two or
more roads ahead and needing to reduce them to one. Or, being stopped a
problematic point means seeing self as being dragged down a road not of one's
own choosing. Or, being stopped at a barrier is knowing where you want to go
but having someone or something standing in the way. Appendix B includes
definitions of each of the Situation Movement States.

Most situation
variables in Sense-Making have been measured using close-ended scales, even in
the contest of the highly open-ended Time-Line Interview. The one exception to
this is Situation Movement State which has been measured primarily using
standard content analytic procedures. Here, coders take the respondents verbal
answers to such questions as (What happened? What led up to your asking this
question? What blocked or hindered you?" and translate them into one of the
theoretically defined Situation Movement States.

A second way in which
Situation Movement State has been measured is with a series of close-ended
scales. Here, respondents are asked to assess the extent to which their
situation fits each of the movement state pictures.

A final way in
which Situation Movement State has been measured has been to train respondents
in the definitions of each of the States and have them essentially do their
own coding. Further investigation of this approach is high on the Sense-Making
research agenda.

GAPS. For this class of measures, there have
been two main thrusts of emphasis. One has been in developing a series of
content analysis schemes for coding the nature of questions people ask. The
other has been for developing the set of auxiliary measures focusing on
respondent gaps. Both of these groups of measures are listed in OVERVIEW #2,
Appendix B.

Page 16

For the emphasis on identifying the nature of respondent
questions, a series of highly tested and reliable content analysis templates
have been developed. Used in most of the studies have been:

5W FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether it
focuses on a who, what, when, where, why, or how gap.

TIME FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether it
focuses on the past, present, or future.

VALENCE FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether
it focuses on good roads, bad roads, or neutral roads.

ENTITY FOCUS: coding the question in terms of whether
it focuses on self, other, process, objects, situations, means of getting from
the past to present, present situations, means of moving from present to
future, or future situations.

In addition, data in most of the applied studies
have been used to develop a descriptive focus scheme for questions detailing
the specific content areas for which respondents see gaps in that particular
research context. Recent work has also used the now eight years of findings to
develop a close-ended list of questions for close-ended
studies.

Attempts have been made to develop the measures of the nature
of gaps to adhere consistently to the general theoretic perspective . Thus, it
was reasoned in developing the theoretic content analysis scheme, that human
beings mandated to make sense in an ever-changing time-space will have
specific kinds of generic questions because of that mandate. The theoretic
templates are the attempt to tap these generic questions, measurable for
specific situations but theoretically applicable across situations.

The
additional gap-related measures all attempt to detail the nature of
information seeking processes and success for different kinds of questions.
Specific measures included to date have been:

* Ease of Answering* Reasons for Ease of
Answering Difficulty* Question Connectedness* Nature of Question
Connectedness* Who would Ask* Importance of Answering* Reasons
for Importance of Answering* Asking Out Loud or Silently* Reasons
for Not asking out Loud* Answering Success

The entire set of measures has rarely all been used
in a given study. As a set, however, they allow the researcher to look at such
questions as: What kinds of questions are least likely to be seen as answered?
What barriers do people see to getting answers? What are the bases people use
for judging answers as good in different situations?

USES. The final
class of variables has, to date, actually consisted of only two measures--the
nature of hurts and the nature of helps. Both hurts and helps are defined by
Sense-Making as the uses made of information. Until recently, all helps/hurts
were measured using content analysis based on a theoretically-guided scheme.
This scheme is described in OVERVIEW #3 in Appendix. Basically, it codes a
help (or hurt) in terms of how it facilitates (or blocks) a persons
picture-making (seen as required for movement), movement, and gaining of
desired ends.

The scheme is used in different forms in different
studies. The most detailed recent list of major categories of helps/hurts
includes the following (stated here as helps):

In very recent work, a close-ended list of
helps/hurts has been used as rating scales asking respondents to judge the
extent to which they expected each help/hurt and the extent to which they
actually experienced each help/hurt.

Page 18

Work to dateThe
published articles, chapters, and available institutional reports produced using
the Sense-Making approach have now begun to form a substantial body of work.
They fall into two classes. One includes theoretic and critical essays
addressing issues raised in the first sections of this paper. These works detail
the assumptions of Sense-Making, the roots from which it came, and the reasons
why it developed as it did. Because these pieces all build on each other, they
do not need to be described individually except in the briefest way. This list
includes all of the non-redundant pieces:

Dervin l976a article in JOURNAL OF BROADCASTING
detailing the nature of the assumptions made about information in
communications research and the consequences of the assumptions to research
conduct.

Zweizig and Dervin l977 chapter in ADVANCES IN
LIBRARIANSHIP applying Sense-Making concepts (particularly the idea of uses)
to the context of library use.

Dervin l977b chapter in DREXEL LIBRARY QUARTERLY
reviewing the prevalent assumptions about information and its use that guide
research and offering alternative assumptions.

Dervin l980 chapter in PROGRESS IN COMMUNICATION
SCIENCE in which the review of prevalent and alternative assumptions is done
specifically in the context of society "have-nots" and the issue of
communication gaps and inequities. Specific references are made to development
issues, as well.

Dervin l98l chapter on changing conceptions of the
audience in the Rice and Paisley volume, PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
CAMPAIGNS.

The second class of published and available work involves
the empirical studies. These include:

Dervin, Zweizig, Banister, Gabriel, Hall, and Kwan
l976. This is the institutional report, available in ERIC, of the large-scale
study of the sense-making in recent troublesome situations of 265 general
population, l00 Asian, and l00 Black respondents drawn in a multi-state
geographic probability sample from within the Seattle city limits. This study
involved the first use of the Sense-Making approach, including use of the
Time-Line Interview, tapping of nature of questions and helps, tapping of
perceived barriers to gap-bridging. The study was seen as descriptive in
intent and yielded a large number of findings useful in designing further
work. The major findings were seen as supporting the Sense-Making premises.
Among the highlights of the findings were:

a) Respondents saw information as a means rather than
an end. They didn't describe their troublesome situations as information
gaps, they didn't focus on information

Page 19

acquisition as an end in itself. Rather, information
seeking and use was seen as a means for moving.

b) Respondents saw information as that which informs.
Answers came internally as well as externally. So-called "subjective"
questions were as prevalent as so-called objective ones. Information was
needed for situations without resolutions as well as for situations with
resolutions. Most questions related to self or others rather than merely
"fact-finding" independent of people. Question asking continued even after
situation resolution.

c) Respondents informed themselves when and where
they could. Tactics for bridging the same gap changed over time. Respondents
used a wide variety of gap-bridging tactics, with the expected high emphasis
on informal networks and low emphasis on formal networks. This latter
finding was interpreted not as proof that people won't use formal systems
but rather as indication that formal systems as they are now designed do not
intersect well with gap-bridging needs.

d) Respondents informed themselves in the context of
time-space bound situations. A variety of situational measures emerged as
predictive of information seeking and use.

e) Respondents assessed information usefulness in a
variety of ways, including not only the traditional posited making decisions
and making progress but less frequently seen uses such as getting support,
gaining self-control, and so on.

Palmour, Rathbun, Brown, Dervin, and Dowd l979. This
is the institutional report, also available in ERIC, of the large scale study
of Californian information needs with 646 respondents sampled using
multi-state random procedures from the entire state's population of adults l4
years of age or older. The study involved the second large-scale use of the
Sense-Making approach and as with the first yielded a large number of
descriptive findings useful in designing further work. The study formed the
basis for a series of training workshops for librarians in the State of
California and, in some libraries, is actively being used for system redesign.
The study's intent as presented in this report was primarily descriptive and
yielded findings much like those above.

Dervin, Harlock, Atwood, and Garzona l980. This is the
first empirical study published in a refereed publication. This study involved
Micro-Moment time-Line Interviews with 24 patients on their last visit to
their doctor. Patients were sampled using random procedures from the patient
rosters of four Seattle doctors. The patients contributed a total of 494
questions, the units of analysis in this study. The study incorporated an
early

Page 20

version of Situation Movement State as a predictor and
early versions of Nature of Questions Asked and Nature of Helps Obtained as
criterions. The study hypothesized and found significant relationships between
the Situation Movement State measure and the two criterions. Each Situation
Movement State was shown to have its own complexion of emphasis on questions
and uses. Highlights of the findings included:

* In general, when in Decision Movement States,
respondents reported asking more questions about choices. In contrast, when
in Worry States, respondents asked more questions about the states of their
bodies, the nature of treatments, and the reasons for states of their
bodies. Barrier States, on the other hand, yielded more questions about the
reasons for treatment and impacts on life.

* In general, when in Decision Movement States,
respondents reported getting more helps from information by identifying
options, finding directions, planning, and arriving. In Worry States they
reported more use of getting away from bad feelings and seeing the road
ahead helps. Barrier States also showed more use of this last use while
Observing States reported more use of avoiding bad roads
ahead.

Atwood and Dervin l982. This study utilized the
California information needs study data (see Palmour et al. above) to pit race
against Situation Movement State as a predictor of the nature of respondent
questions (measured with the 5W Focus Template) and sources used to get
answers. From the respondents in the California study, 205 were selected for
the study. Asians were excluded because their numbers were too small. Whites
were sub-sampled to reduce their numbers to levels more closely aligned with
other groups. The resulting sub-samples include respondents with a most
important question: 67 Whites, 74 Blacks, 64 Hispanics. It was hypothesized
and found that: l) Situation Movement State significantly predicted nature of
questions; and 2) Situation Movement State and Race in interaction
significantly predicted sources used. Reasoning behind the hypotheses was that
race as a predictor is a measure that taps the structural or system
constraints within a society and, thus, should play more of a role in
predicting behaviors that are constrained by society (i.e. source use) than in
predicting behaviors that are more in the individual's control (i.e.
gap-defining, question-asking).

Dervin, Nilan, and Jacobson l982. This study used
Micro-Moment Time-Line interviews with 80 blood donors as its data base. The
blood donors were selected using random procedures from eight strata (based on
age, sex, and new versus repeat donor status) of donors listed on the Puget
Sound Blood Center rosters. The 80 respondents yielded 480 questions, the
units of analysis. This study focused on the predictor power of predictors
defined in

Page 21

terms of different time definitions. The question
was what kinds of measures would predict information uses (i.e. helps) best: a
group of seven Demographic measures (defined as tapping across time-space);
six a prior: situational measures (defined as tapping time space at the point
of entry into the communication situation): and time-space bound situational
measures including six measures of situational perceptions and six measures of
the nature of gaps seen (i.e. questions). It was hypothesized and found that
the time-space bound measures accounted for more variance in information uses
than either across time-space or a prior time-space measures. Results showed
that time-space bound measures accounted for l7.4% of variance in information
uses on the average compared to l.7 % and l.6% respectively for across
time-space and a prior: Time-space measures. It was also hypothesized that of
the two classes of time-space bound measures, gaps measures would be stronger
predictors than other situational characteristic measures because gap measures
speak more directly to the essence of sense-making. Results supported the
hypothesis. Gap measures accounted for l5.3% on the average compared to only
2.l% for other situational measures. The study, thus, provided evidence of the
ways in which different uses are used to assess the effectiveness of
gap-bridging for different kinds of questions. Typical of these specific
findings were:

a) When respondents reported using "got pictures" as
their means for assessing the use of answers to questions, they were
significantly more likely to have done so if they had asked a "where am I
now" question and questions about the state of their own bodies or the
nature of blood processing.

b) When respondents reported using "got
started/going" as their use for answers, they were significantly more likely
to have done so if they asked "where will I be questions" and answers
focusing on their own self-control and bodies.

c) When respondents reported using "avoided a bad
situation" as their use, they were significantly more likely to have done so
if they asked questions before donating, questions about paid, and questions
about the donating process.

Atwood, Allen, Bardgett, Proudlove, and Rich l982.
This study used Micro-Moment Time-Line Interviews with children aged 5-l2
reporting on recent television viewing. In all, 55 children were interviewed
(all children at two sites of a day care program for whom parental permission
was obtained) yielding l28 questions asked. The questions were the units of
analysis for this study. Children were asked to describe the steps in their
recent exposures to TV. The study compared the predictive power of type of
program watched to Situation Movement States as content analyzed based on
children reports of the Time-Line steps in their viewing. Criterion measures
included: Nature of question

Page 22

asked at each Time-Line step (5W Focus); whether
question was asked out loud or silently; when question was answered; source of
answer; and helps obtained from answer. Results suggested that Situation
Movement State was a stronger predictor of the nature of questions asked and
helps while program type was a stronger predictor of sources
used.

Dervin, Jacobson, and Nilan l982. Using the same data
base as described for the Dervin, Nilan, and Jacobson article above, this
study set out to validate the relativistic, qualitative approach to looking at
information-seeking by using relativistic and qualitative differences in
information seeking as predictors of a criterion set of measures of
information seeking emphasis, and success. Predictor measures included: time,
5W, valence, entity, movement, and descriptive focus of question. Criterion
measures included frequency of asking, proportionate emphasis, ease of
gap-bridging, and completeness of gap-bridging. Of 24 statistical tests
completed, 20 were significant indicating that the different kinds of
questions differed significantly from each other in terms of the frequency
with which they were asked, the emphasis placed on them, the degree of ease
seen in answering (i.e. gap-bridging), and the completeness of gap-bridging.
Some notable findings included:

* Frequently asked questions focused more on the
future.

* Most emphasized questions were those that involved
self.

* Hardest questions to answer were seen as those
involving the future of those that focused on understanding the connections
between different time-space points and evaluating events.

Dervin, Nilan, Krenz, and Wittet l982. This study of
cancer patients used random sampling procedures to secure 82 respondents (3l
chemotherapy and 5l radiation therapy) from the patient rosters at the
University of Washington hospital. The 82 respondents contributed 525
questions, the units of analysis for this study. One section of the study
compared the predictive power of treatment (chemotherapy versus radiation
therapy) with a situational measure of state in the disease/treatment process
as predictors of the nature of questions asked (time, 5W, valence, entity, and
descriptive focus). Of 29 dummy measures tapping nature of questions asked,
treatment significantly predicted none while stated in the disease/treatment
process predicted l9. Results showed that each stage had its own sense-making
profile. A second section of findings focused on the importance, method of
getting answers, success, and expected

* One notable finding showed an ebb and flow in
sense-making such that attention turned to underlying issues (philosophical
questions, understandings whys) only when situational conditions permitted
this kind of attention).

* Why questions were seen at least important in this
study, the most difficult to get answers to, and the least likely to be
reported as answered.

* Good road questions were seen as more important
than either neutral or bad road questions.

* Questions without any involvement of self or others
(i.e. questions about processes and objects seen as unconnected to one's own
situations) were judged as least likely to have helpful
answers.

Across the studies to date, there have been some
consistencies in analytic approaches which deserve mention.

THE USE OF UNITS OF ANALYSIS SMALLER THAN THE
PERSON.Conceptually, Sense-Making posits
that sense-making behaviors are responsive to situational conditions and
should not be predicted based on across time-space measures. This premise has
been supported with the consistent results showing situation as a more
powerful predictor of information seeking and use as defined by Sense-Making.
Sense-Making has also relied heavily on other work which has supported the
notion that respondent consistencies do not account for significant variance
in information seeking. While some Sense-Making studies have used the person
as the unit of analysis (i.e. Atwood and Dervin l982), this has resulted from
the fact that each person had only one question as mandated by the study
design. In all other studies, the question asked or the sense-making instance
has been the unit of analysis in order to allow respondents to create their
own context and be different in different contexts. The open-ended procedures
used for most Sense-Making work to date have also prevented any explicit
statistical comparison of the power of respondent differences in accounting
for variance versus situational differences. This test is now being performed
for a study using the Close-Ended Sense-Making Interview (Nilan l983, Nilan
and Dervin l983). This approach allows the researcher to obtain situational
data from the same respondent for a verity of prescribed situational
conditions and thus permits an explicit test of situation versus
respondent.

Page 24

HIGH EMPHASIS ON DESCRIPTIVE, INDUCTIVE
WORK.Even in studies with hypotheses,
Sense-Making studies have universally placed heavy emphasis on describing the
results of data collection in inductive ways in order to enrich and provide
direction for future work.

HIGH EMPHASIS ON TESTING DATA COLLECTING, MEASURING,
AND CODING TECHNIQUES.Appropriately, to
date, most of the effort in Sense-Making has been focused on developing and
refining data collecting, measuring, and coding approaches. The Micro-Moment
Time-Line, for example, has gone through a number of transformations until its
recent stabilization. The dimensions of situations, gaps, and uses tapped with
explicit questions and either close-ended measurement or content analysis have
also gone through transformations.

USE OF RELATIVELY SIMPLE STATISTICAL
PRESENTATIONS.The reason for this is the conclusion that statistical
clarity is necessary to support and enrich conceptual clarity and that
frequently unuseful conceptualizations are hidden in overly elaborate
statistical presentations.

Looking at the studies in terms of their
contributions to date, these can be summarized in five ways. Each of these will
be described briefly below and illustrated with one or two examples.

THEY SUPPORT THE SENSE-MAKING THEORETIC
PREMISES.All the studies, to date, have provided support for the core
Sense -Making premises. They, for example, show consistently that people
assess the effectiveness of the answers they get to questions (i.e.
information) in personal terms rather than in terms of objective information
processing.

THEY CONTRADICT SOME OLD MYTHS.One prevalent myth, well documented in the past literature,
is that the amount of information seeking and use of citizens, even highly
educated ones, is low. The Sense-Making studies, on the other hand, show
so-much Sense-Making activity that the research approaches are sometimes
hard-put to deal with it all.

THEY FREQUENTLY FIT COMMON-SENSE
EXPECTATIONS.It might be said that the
hardest conclusions to reach are sometimes the simplest in retrospect. This is
an assessment that can be easily made about many Sense-Making findings. It
might be said, for example, that: "Of course, people ask different questions
at different points as they proceed through a situation;" or "Of course, why
questions are harder to answer." It must be remembered, however, that while
the findings often pass the test of common sense, they remain findings that
prior research approaches have not been able to
engender.

Page 25

THEY CONFIRM WHERE THE SYSTEM PUTS ITS SENSE-MAKING
EMPHASIS.As part of the ways in which
Sense-Making studies have supported their own theoretic premises, they have
also confirmed the expectations of those premises for the usefulness in
sense-making of current communication systems. One example is the heavy
emphasis in the Sense-Making studies on "why" questions and the empirically
proven lack of emphasis on such questions in current information systems.
Another example is the consistent use by respondents of positive uses for
answers -- feeling good about self, getting hope, being able to continue,
feeling happy. This contrasts with evidence showing that consistently our
communication systems emphasize the disastrous, sad, and negative. Another is
the findings showing that topic focus and assumed use do not predict question
asking or answer using. This contradicts the almost exclusive use in our
communication systems of topic (e.g. national news, local news) or assumed use
(e.g. entertainment, information) for organizing information.

THEY PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR PRACTICE.Both the theoretic and descriptive findings provide specific
directions for communication practice. They, for example, pinpoint for
practitioners what kinds of questions respondents need answers to and what
kinds of uses they want to put these answers to. They also pinpoint for the
practitioner the time-space points at which the respondents are most likely to
be asking specific kinds of questions. They also show where the current system
is not meeting sense-making needs.

Practice inventionsBoth the theoretic premises of the Sense-Making studies and the
findings have been used as the basis for three practice inventions currently
being used in actual communication systems. Testing the helpfulness of these
inventions is on the Sense-Making research agenda.

NEUTRAL QUESTIONING.Neutral-Questioning
is an interpersonal communicating tactic derived from these Sense-Making
premises: that sense-making is situational; and that focusing on the assumed
to be universals of movement through time-space and the mandate to bridge gaps
allows one person to assess dimensions of the perspective of another
universally applicable to sense-making. Neutral-Questioning directs the
communicator to ask others three classes of questions which are content free
except in their allegiance to time-space premises. Examples of these questions
are:

To tap situations : What happened? What led you to
this place? What blocks or hinders you?

To tap gaps: What questions do you have? What
confuses you? What do you need to make sense of? What holes exist in your
understanding?

Page 26

To tap uses: What help would you like? What would
you like to see happen? What's your aim?

Practice in the use of Neutral-Questioning has been
systematically given to a variety of professionals: primarily librarians, and
doctors. No explicit test has been conducted yet but informal reports suggest
that after the initial shock of the change, professionals find the tactic
allows them to communicate more effectively and efficiently at the same time.
As one reference librarian put it: "I've been able to find out in two minutes
with Neutral-Questioning what it would have taken l5 minutes or more to
determine using the traditional approach to the reference interview." This
statement, which needs explicit study, of course, contradicts one of the
most-often stated assumptions in the field of communications -- that effective
communication always takes more time.

THE INFOSHEET.This practice invention also is derived from Sense-Making
theoretic premises and its finding which suggest that in order to make
effective sense people: need to receive information that is transmitted
subjectively (i.e. anchored in the situations-gaps-uses of the sources); and
need to get a picture of the different senses different people have made in a
variety of situations to so they can locate themselves (i.e. allows them to
circle reality and locate themselves within it). These premises lead to the
conclusion that in media products more than one source should be used, sources
should be maximally different and not defined simply as experts, and that
information from sources should be rooted in their time-space. Infosheets have
been designed for a doctor's office, a school system, and a medical clinic and
are being developed for a variety of library settings. All Infosheet
development starts with some kind of Time-Line interviews with intended
audience members. After audience questions are determined, an Infosheet is
constructed to address one or more questions. Sources who give answers to the
question are solicited from a wide spectrum of individuals involved in,
effected by, or knowledgeable about the situational context. Sources are asked
how they would answer the question, what led them to construct that answer,
and how the answer helps them. Contradictions in source's answers are referred
back to sources so they can explain their views of what led to the
contradictions existing. An example, one Infosheet developed for parents of
exceptional children in a school system focused on the most asked question of
parents: "what makes a child exceptional?" Answers were obtained using the
guidelines above from "experts," from parents, from both so-called exceptional
and not exceptional children. While no explicit test has been done to date,
users of Infosheets have universally reported them interesting and
useful.

Page 27

GOOD NEWS NEWS PAPER.As a result of the consistent emphasis in the findings on
good and hopeful uses of answers to questions, the GOOD NEWS NEWSPAPER was
designed. The only example to date focused on the University of Washington
community. Communication students interviewed other students, faculty, and
staff asking them: What's one thing you really like about being a member of
the UW community? What's the thing you've accomplished recently at UW that you
are most proud of? What's an instance when someone at UW really helped you in
a time of need? Representative selections of these responses are being
compiled in a UW GOOD NEWS NEWSPAPER. Again, no test has been made. However,
the would-be journalists who did the interviewing and constructing of the
paper and the students readers exposed to it so far have been
enthusiastic.

Research agendaWhile Sense-Making studies and essays first emerged in l975-l976,
now eight years later, there is still the feeling of being at a beginning, even
if the beginning is now infinitely more complex. Each Sense-Making study has
raised more questions than it has answered. Each step points to more need for
development, more potential applications, more tests. A detailed research agenda
will be published in the upcoming book (Dervin l984). For purposes of this
paper, the research agenda can be summarized as involving seven thrusts of
activity:

1) Systematic tests of the testable Sense-Making
premises.

2) A series of explicit tests of respondent versus
situation as predictors of sense-making.

3) The development and use of more traditionally
qualitative methods of analysis in order to tap the richness of the
Micro-Moment Time Line Interviews.

4) The continued development and refinement of content
analysis schemes to tap nature of situations, questions, and uses as well as
barriers to sense-making, bases for judging answers as complete incomplete,
and gap-bridging strategies.

5) The continued development and refinement of training
approaches which allow respondents to classify their own responses in the
context of researcher templates.

6) The continued development and refinement of the
Close-Ended Sense-Making Interview, particularly with application to
micro-moments.

7) The evaluation of the usefulness of practice
inventions in actual communication systems.

Page 28

APPENDIX A

EXAMPLES OF VARIOUS APPROACHES TO
SENSE-MAKING INTERVIEWING

Page 29

EXAMPLE #1

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview:
1982 study of cancer
patients.________________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
82 cancer patients treated at the University of Washington Hospitals selected
using stratified disproportionate random selection procedures. The
stratification variable was radiation vs chemotherapy treatment. In-person
interviews took an average of 150 minutes with a range from
30-420.

METHOD: Each respondent was asked to focus on a situation during
his/her chemotherapy and/or radiation treatment. The entire Time-Line was
elicited: what happened first? what questions did you have? what happened next?
what questions did you have? and so on. Time-Line steps were written on white
file cards, and each question on blue cards, keyed to time line step #. Then, up
to 8 Qs were analyzed in depth. If an R was more than 8, he/she was asked to
shuffle the cards on which the Qs were listed and randomly select 8. Dimensions
for the in-depth analysis of the 8 questions are identified briefly below in
terms of what the respondent was asked to elicit responses. This is not the
entire format of the Time-Line interview used because different respondents went
different paths depending on their earlier responses. What follows is the
structure for this one respondent.

CITATIONS: Dervin, Nilan, Krenz and
Wittet 1982

EXCERPT: What follows below is an excerpt from the Time-Line
(consisting of descriptions of Time-Line steps accompanied by their questions).
This is followed by complete transcripts of the in-depth analyses of two
questions. Respondent is a 46 year old female chemotherapy patient with 14 years
of
education._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
TIME-LINESTEP 1: Each time before the treatments we got up and I fixed
breakfast for everyone.

Q1: Why am I going in again when I am going to feel
awful?

STEP 2: My husband took me to the U District to my
friend's house on his way back to work and we picked places to go because my
treatments were around noon.

Q1: Why am I letting myself get ill even before the
chemotherapy treatments?

STEP 3: I would go and stick my arm out and they couldn't
find a vein and they would poke and poke and I would try to be big about it.
They made me feel insecure by sending me from the chemo nurse to the blood lab
because the technicians there didn't seem professional.

Q1: Why am I going through this?Q2: When my blood
count was low and they put off the treatment would this mean this would
stretch out longer than a year?Q3: Have they ruined my arm?Q4: Do
these people know what they are doing?

(SKIPPING DOWN TO THE LAST STEP)

Page 30

STEP 11: They cut back my dosage and I was able to start
school in the fall.

Q: Why am I letting myself get ill even before the
chemotherapy treatment?

What were you trying to do (cope with, understand,
accomplish, figure out, survive, endure, tolerate) when you asked this
question?

I suppose I was trying to talk myself out of it to
convince myself that I wasn't going to feel this way each time as I walked
through those doors; that I was going to be able to overcome that nausea and
that upset that started the minute I got there. And then too I guess I always
felt a little sorry for myself and that's why I suppose I got that way because
I knew it was in the back of my mind you are going to do to this poor thing
and I would remember how it was the month before and how much it hurts. I
don't really know why I was asking this question except that I
did.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you see yourself as blocked or hindered in any way when you asked this
question?How?

Yes. My normal life by then was kind of a mess. I was
barely able to function at home. I had given up my schooling, my bowling was
terrible, I dropped some of the things I did outside. Yeah, I guess I would
say I was hindered. My normal life that I had lived for years and years and
years was just a mess. I wasn't able to do hardly
anything.

_______________________________________________________________________Is
there anything else you could tell us that explains why you asked this
question?

As I was saying, up to this point I have been very
healthy and my family was very healthy and it was just really hard for me to
accept this fact that I felt sick all the time when I was so used to always
feeling well, and I didn't like and there wasn't anything I could do about it.
And I marched in there every month to do something that made me sick and when
you are normally a person who feels good it is just really hard to accept
that. That you are going to be sick every day and I suppose that was part of
it. That really irritated me; and made me mad and it kind of got into my mind
and it bothered me and the next thing I knew I felt
lousy.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
this question stand alone or was it related to other questions?

Stood alone.

_______________________________________________________________________If
other people were in a situation like this, how many of them do you think would
ask this same question in their minds? All/A lot/About half/Just a
few/None.

A lot.

Page 31

_______________________________________________________________________How
easy did it seem to get an answer to this question? (Scale: 1 = very hard to 10
= very easy). Why did you see it this way?

5Because after turning it over a few times I
finally decided that I was allowing this to happen just because I was focusing
in on the pain and the discomfort and it made me sick. It was never a thing I
ever answered for myself. I wasn't able to overcome the feelings as I went in
there.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
getting an answer ever seem harder or easier (Same/harder/easier)(If harder
or easier) Where did it move on scale?(If harder or easier) Why did it
change?

Same as before.

_______________________________________________________________________How
important was getting an answer to this question at the time when you asked it
in your mind? (Scale: 1 = very unimportant to 10 = very important). Why did you
see it this way?

2Because I felt I was caught up in a situation
I couldn't do anything about. I was committed and it didn't matter whether I
had an answer to the question. I was going to do it.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
getting an answer ever seem more or less important? (same/less/more)(If more
or less) Where did it move on the scale?(If more or less) Why did it
change?

Same as before.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you actually ask this question out loud at this time?(If no) Why?

No.It was just a rumbling at
first.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you ever ask this question out loud?

Yes.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you get an answer to this question at this time?

No.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you ever get an answer to this question?

Yes.

_______________________________________________________________________Was
it complete or partial?What about it made it seem
(complete/partial)?

Partial.I don't feel that I am equipped
psychologically or medically to answer why I got this reaction so my
supposition is that I had to go on.

_______________________________________________________________________How
did you get the answer?

I just thought about and decided that this is the way it
was with me from my own background.

Page 32_______________________________________________________________________Did
you expect the answer to help you in any way? If so, how?

No.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you expect the answer to hurt you in any way? If so, how?

No.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
the answer actually help you in any way? If so, how?

No.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
the answer actually hurt you in any way? If so,
how?_______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************IN
DEPTH ANALYSIS OF Q3, STEP 5

Q1: After all the doctors, was he really a doctor or a
specialist? Is he still training?

_______________________________________________________________________What
were you trying to do (cope with, understand, accomplish, figure out, survive,
endure, tolerate) when you asked this question?

I wanted to be reassured that I was getting the proper
treatment and that these people were really qualified to be giving me all
these lethal type drugs. I was kind of insecure and this was all really new
and I just wanted to be reassured that this was really good for
me.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you see yourself as blocked or hindered in any way when you asked this
question?How?

Yes. My state of mind mainly because I was nervous
about it. I was feeling insecure and frightened.

_______________________________________________________________________Is
there anything else you could tell us that explains why you asked this
question?

Only that they were told that they had finished their
tour of duty so to speak and that the part that they were moving on made me
wonder if this was just a training session to them and they weren't really
specialists, and I wanted a specialist.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
this question stand alone or was it related to other questions?What
questions? How were they connected?

Related to other questions.Was he really taking
care of my case?I just wasn't sure what their positions were, what they
were in the whole set-up. Were they the doctors that were looking at my case
and deciding on the medicine or did they just repeat things to some other
doctor and get the answers somewhere else? Were they qualified to make these
decisions or did they have to go to somebody else. I'm not sure that is what
you want.

_______________________________________________________________________If
other people were in a situation like this, how many of them do you think would
ask this same question in their minds? All/A lot/About half/Just a
few/None.

A lot.

Page 33

_______________________________________________________________________How
easy did it seem to get an answer to this question? (Scale: 1 = very hard to 10
= very easy) Why did you see it this way?

1Because I never asked it out loud to anyone who
could answer it.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
getting an answer ever seem harder or easier? (Same/harder/easier)(If harder
or easier) Where did it move on scale?(If harder or easier) Why did it
change?

EasierMoved to 10Because I finally got the
answers, the secure answers.

_______________________________________________________________________How
important was getting an answer to this question at the time when you asked it
in your mind? (Scale: 1 = very unimportant to 10 = very important)Why did
you see it this way?

9

Because they were giving me some very strong medicine
and once I began to doubt their ability then I was worried about
it.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
getting an answer ever seem more or less important? (same/less/more)(If more
or less) Where did it move on the scale?(If more or less) Why did it
change?

MoreMoved to 10Because the more I thought about
it the more worried I got that I didn't understand the set-up there and I
wasn't sure about their abilities.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you actually ask this question out loud at this time?

Yes

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you get an answer to this question at this time?

Yes

_______________________________________________________________________Was
it complete or partial?What about it made it seem
(complete/partial)?

CompleteHe explained that their different abilities
were that yes, they were really doctors and they were trained specialists and
although there were what they considered in training they had been at it for
some time. And they were, he assured me, that they were qualified to do what
they do and he also told me that they were in consultation with Dr.
__________. Always there was never one doctor that made the decision. It was
always Dr. _____ in connection with the doctor you were
seeing.

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1980
study of blood
donors._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
80 blood donors residing in the city of Seattle, selected from the donor rosters
of the Puget Sound Blood Center in a disproportionate stratified random sample
defined by three strata (two levels of age, sex, and new versus repeat donor).
In-person interviews took an average of 93 minutes, with a range from
50-130.

METHOD: Each respondent was asked to describe his/her recent
blood donation. For this administration, Time-Line steps were elicited first,
then questions were elicited for each Time-Line step. Finally, in-depth analyses
were elicited on all questions.

EXCERPT: What is presented
below is an excerpt from the Time-Line (consisting of Time-Line steps and
accompanying questions). This is followed by a complete example of an in-depth
question analysis. Respondent is a 16 year old male new
donor._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
TIME LINESTEP 1: We were told we would get extra credit in health class for
donating.

Q1: How much did I have to give?Q2: What are the
procedures?

STEP 2: A friend who had donated told me about it so
a friend and I decided to donate.

Q1: How long would it take?Q2: Would it
hurt?Q3: How big is the needle?Q4: How much blood do I have to
give?

STEP 3: I got my parent's permission.

No questions.

(SKIPPING DOWN TO STEP 7)STEP 7: She called me in
and I didn't know what was going on.

Q1: What are they going to do?Q2: What is all this
equipment for if they are just going to takemy
blood?

(SKIPPING DOWN TO THE LAST STEP)STEP 11: After eight
minutes I went to the canteen for cookies and juice.

No questions.

Page 36

_______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************IN-DEPTH
ANALYSIS OF STEP 7How clear was the event (scale of 1 = very unclear to 10 =
very clear.)

3

_______________________________________________________________________How
many people were involved?

Only me.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you see event as just happening or was it seen as a result of something that
happened earlier?

Just happened.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you see event as having possible good consequences.

No.

_______________________________________________________________________Did
you see event as having possible bad consequences.

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1979
study of interpersonal conflicts faced by university graduate
students._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
35 students in an applied communication class at the University of Washington.
Students did a self-analysis following prepared guidelines.

METHOD: Each
student was asked to list the Time-Line steps (what happened first, second, and
so on) and then the questions at each step. Then they did in-depth analyses of
each question.

CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.

EXCERPT: What
is presented below is a complete Time-Line (consisting of Time-Line steps and
accompanying questions) followed by two complete examples of in-depth question
analyses. Respondent is a male, sophomore, 20 years
old._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
TIME LINESTEP 1: This person was in my room in the dorm without my
permission.

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1979
study of students attending university
classes._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
Undergraduate students attending two classes in the University of Washington
School of Communications: a class in radio production and a class in research
methods. Students in the research methods class did interpersonal
interviews.

METHOD: Each student was asked to list the Time-Line steps
(what happened first, second, and so on) and then the questions at each step).
In-depth analyses were then done of all questions.

CITATIONS: unpublished
at this time.

EXCERPT: What is presented below is an excerpt from a
Time-Line (consisting of Time-Line steps and accompanying questions). This is
followed by a complete example of an in-depth question analysis. Respondent is a
female, age 22, a
senior.______________________________________________________________________************************************************************THE
TIME LINE

STEP 1: I got into class and everyone shuffled in
late.

Q1: How will I handle the assignments to write spots to
produceradio sports that is due next week?Q2: Will we get out of class
early?Q3: Why are people always late?

STEP 2: The instructor told us what we were going to do
that day.

No questions.

STEP 3: She started talking about the editing
machine.Q1: I wondered if I would be able to do it.

(SKIPPING DOWN TO
LAST STEP)STEP 11: Our small group decided we'd talk later and we
left.

Q1: Would I remember when we were going to
meet?

______________________________________________________________________************************************************************IN-DEPTH
ANALYSIS OF Q1, STEP 3Q1: I wondered if I would be able to do it.

Was
it easy, hard, or impossible to get an answer?

Easy.

______________________________________________________________________Did
you get an answer at that time, later or never?

Later.

______________________________________________________________________How
did you get an answer?

Tried it out myself.

Page 41

______________________________________________________________________Did
the answer help or hurt or both?

Helped.

______________________________________________________________________How
did it help?

METHOD: Each
respondent was asked to describe a recent troublesome experience. They described
their Time-Line steps and the questions they had at each step. They were asked
then to describe each question they had in more detail.

CITATIONS:
unpublished at this time.

EXCERPT: What is presented below is the
complete Time-Line Interview for a 23 year old male diagnosed as moderately
retarded._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
TIME LINE AND ALL ACCOMPANYING DETAILED ANALYSES

STEP 1: The kite, the
string came undone.What were you trying to accomplish?

I wanted the kite to go up in the
air.

What questions did you have at this time?

Whether to tie it back on.

Did you get an answer?

No.

Why not?

Because I was mad. I lost my cool so darned
easy.

Would an answer to this question have helped
you?

Yes.

How?

Try again.

_______________________________________________________________________STEP
2: I tore the kite up.What were you trying to accomplish?

Just don't do it, just try again, but I lost my
cool.

What questions did you have at this time?

Do I have to pay for it?

Did you get an answer?

No

.Why not?

Because I was mad at the time.

Would an answer to this question have helped
you?

Yes.

How?

I don't know, just to make it work
again.

Page 43_______________________________________________________________________STEP
3: People were laughing at me.What were you trying to accomplish?

To get it to school, to get it at least half way
up.

What questions did you have at this time?

I wished I could talk to the folks and tell them what
they were doing.

Did you get an answer?

No.

Why not?

The kids would turn against me.

Would an answer help?

Yes.

How?

I would have talked to them and told them to knock it
off.

______________________________________________________________________STEP
4: Then I got on the bike and took off.What were you trying to
accomplish?

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview:
1981 study of children's television
viewing._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
Permission was sought from parents of all 114 children attending the Austin,
Texas Extend-A-Care after-school program at two sites. All children whose
parents agreed were interviewed, yielding 55 interviews. The respondents were
aged 5-12.

METHOD: Each respondent was asked to name several television
shows he or she had watched in the past several days and then to name the
television show best remembered or most important. The child was then asked to
describe the show on a time-line, as though the child had a camera and took
pictures during the program. When the time-line was complete, the child was
asked to indicate what questions he/she has asked aloud or silently during each
time line step. They were then asked to indicate whether each question was
answered, when, how and whether the answer helped or was expected to
help.

CITATIONS: Atwood, Allen, Bardgett, Proudlove, and Rich
1982.

EXCERPT: What is presented below is the complete Time-Line
Interview for a 5 year old girl and a partial Time-Line Interview for a 10 year
old
boy._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
COMPLETE TIME LINE FOR A 5 YEAR OLD GIRL

STEP 1: A man was running. A
shark headed at him. He jumped out of the boat and got away.

Q1: Did this really happen?Q2: Why is this so
funny?

Did this really happen?a) Asked this question out loud.b) Got an answer at the
time.c) Got answer from mother.d) Answer helped because: I knew it
wasn't real.

Why is this so funny?a) Asked this question out
loud.b) Got an answer at the time.c) Got answer from mother.d)
Answer helped because: My mother told me it wasn'tfunny. I asked because I
didn't think it was funny but mybrothers laughed so I laughed
too.

Page 45_______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
TIME LINE FOR THE 10 YEAR OLD BOY

STEP 1: Everybody got stuck in the car
on the way to the cabin.

Q1: How did they get stuck in the snow when they were
going 50miles an hour?

STEP 2: Fonzie digs the car out of the snow.

Q1: Why did he forget the shovel?

STEP 3: Fonzie walks in the woods with
friends.

No questions.

STEP 4: They were having an axe throwing contest. A man
got a splinter inhis finger.

Q1: Why didn't he say ouch?

STEP 5: Richie and his girlfriend had a fight. Fonzie
gets them back together.

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1982
study of minority and non-minority students at the University of
Texas-Austin._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
79 students (20 Blacks, 20 Hispanics, 19 Asians, 20 Whites) selected with
disproportionate stratified random sampling procedures from the roster of
students at the University of Texas-Austin.

METHOD: Each respondent was
asked to describe recent difficult situations encountered at the University of
Texas. They were then asked to select the most important situation from the
current semester.

CITATIONS: Atwood and McLean 1983a,
1983b.

EXCERPT: What follows below is the Time-Line and one in-depth
question analysis from an interview with a 27 year old male Black doctoral
student._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************THE
TIME LINE

STEP 1: During my first meeting with professors in my
department, my GRE scores were presented to me in front of my spouse as
inappropriate and representative of my inability to perform according to
department requirements.

Q1: Could I do the work?Q2: If I don't perform,
will I be here next year?

STEP 2: I put myself in a psychological state of stress
and challenged myself to either put up or shut up.

Q1: Who can I go to for assistance?Q2: How could I
go about setting up my own program ofindividual
study?

STEP 3: I sought assistance from one professor in the
department regarding help with statistics. I also recruited the professor's help
who was teaching the stat course.

No questions.

STEP 4: The psychological stress of the situation took
its toll on me and I got physically ill. As a consequence, I began to panic and
my motivation level began to decrease.

Q1: Was it my fault that I was under so much
pressure?Q2: Did it really matter if I could do the work in the eyes of
thedepartment?

STEP 5: At the end of the semester, I asked my professor
for moral and academic support. I was given a second semester to prove to my
department and myself that I had the ability to perform.

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1981
study of college student paper writing
experience._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
98 students in an undergraduate communications course at the University of
Washington-Seattle.

METHOD: Students did self-interviews using specified
instructions. They detailed the time-line steps for their most recent paper
writing experience and then completed in-depth analyses for all questions
asked.

CITATIONS: unpublished at this time.

EXCERPT: What follows
below is a complete set of the data obtained for Step 2 in the Time-Line
Interview of a 19 year old male college
sophomore._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************STEP
2: I decided on the topic of my paper -- alcoholism.

Questions I got
answers to:

Will this be an interesting topic to research?Will
I find enough information to do a 10-page paper?

Questions I did not get answers to:

Should I have picked abortion as my issue
instead?

Questions raised by event:

How does this assignment relate to this
class?

Will this be an interesting topic to
research?

a) Easy to get answer because I was already interested
in topic andthrough my research become more interested.b) Got answer
at a later time.c) Got a complete answer.d) Got answer by doing my
research and writing the paper.e) Answer helped by making me feel more
relaxed in doing this topicbecause I felt that I could make an interesting
report.f) Answer did not hurt.

________________________________________________________________

/skipping to last question asked at this time-line
step/

How dies this assignment relate to this class?

a) Easy to get an answer because I was able to ask
teacher.b) Got answer at this time.c) Got a complete answer.d) Got
answer by asking teacher.e) Answer helped because I tried to center my
paper around thesociological aspects of alcoholism as teacher wanted and
thishelped me get a better grade.f) Answer hurt because I really
wanted to focus on the facts ofalcoholism rather than sociological
interpretation.

METHOD: Respondents were asked to describe recent situations in
which they had stopped and thought about or tried to solve a problem, make a
decision, or answer a question. Respondents were then asked to identify the
situation most important to them and to describe the Time-Line steps for that
situation. They were also asked to indicate what questions they had at each step
and which question across all steps was most important to them. This most
important question was analyzed in depth in terms of what sources were used,
what helps were sought, and so on.

EXCERPTS: What follows
below is the core Time-Line for an 18 year old Black female and an in-depth
analysis of her most important
question.______________________________________________________________________************************************************************THE
TIME LINE (* = the most important question)Step 1: I quit school because I
got pregnant.

No questions.

Step 2: I had the baby one month ago.

Step 3: I didn't know whether to go back to school or
not.

Q1: *How important is returning to
school?

Step 4: I'm only 18 and my folks thought it was
important.

Q1: How much do I really want to go
back?

Step 5: I live at home so I have no expenses and my
mother babysits for me.

Step 6: So I am going back to
school.______________________________________________________________________************************************************************IN-DEPTH
ANALYSIS OF MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONDid you get an answer to this question?
How?

Excerpt from Micro-Moment Time-Line Interviews: 1983
study of southeast Asian refugees living in
Seattle.______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
Southeast Asian refugees living in Seattle interviewed in available groups
(i.e., at English classes).

METHOD: The refugees were asked to recall
their recent visit to a hospital or clinic. They were asked to describe the
events involved and detail the questions they had during each event. For each
question they indicated, they were asked whether they got answers, and how.
Among speaking interviewers/group process facilitators were trained and ran the
sessions when respondents could not speak English. Responses were tape recorded
and translated and transcribed later.

CITATIONS: Wittet
1983

EXCERPT: What follows below is the situation descriptions and
questions asked by four respondents. Since questions emerged in the process of
talking, the questions are indicated in all capital letters in the
transcriptions._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************RESPONDENT
#02 - female, 29 year old describing visit to hospital

Situation: They gave me medicine to take to increase
the blood in my body. Even I take before breakfast or lunch or dinner it make
me vomit. So that I need to ask the doctor [QUESTION:] IF IT"S OKAY I DON"T
TAKE IT OR I MUST TAKE IT? But I cannot ask because I do not speak
English.

Situation 1: The last time I went to the hospital is I
have my baby and then after I have my baby the doctor and nurse bring me cold
water. So that in my culture that's different and I keep asking them about the
question that [QUESTION:] WHY THE PEOPLE THAT HAS NEW BABY THEY KEEP DRINKING
VERY COLD WATER?

Situation 2: After I have my baby I'm very new. I like
my body is changing and they let me take a walk every two hours or three
hours. I keep thinking that my body is new and that I'm so tired to
understand. And also I think that many things in my body is not wrong and
there is no illness but I just have a baby and I'm thinking that in a few days
I'll get better. I'll get strong but the doctor say you have to walk and I was
thinking [QUESTION:] WHY HE SAY THIS? And, many things many things but I can't
tell them. They don't understand me either.

Situation 1: . . . when I came to the U.S. and they
have to give blood check to take out blood. {QUESTION:] WHY DO THEY USUALLY
TAKE A LOT OF BLOOD OUT?

Situation 2: I would like to ask but I believe that the
doctor they know more than me but I'm still concerned like Mrs. __________ she
say when you a lady have a baby in our culture we just use very special food,
hot food, or hot water. We have to cook special for the people that just have
baby. But [QUESTION:] WHY WHEN YOU HAVE BABY IN HOSPITAL THEY GIVE YOU EVERY
KIND OF FOOD TO EAT? And, in our people if they take every food like that
should be they have problem when they get old.

Situation 3: Usually our people believe that the doctor
know more than yourself and every time you went to the hospital you don't have
any questions and you just say "I see" and you hope that the doctor will find
everything for you and the doctor will tell you everything. But I am very
concerned that [QUESTION:] WHY WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR HE ASK YOU MANY, MANY
QUESTIONS?

Situation 1: This happened. When person who die, they
already know that kind of sickness he or she have before. But after die, they
still open. [QUESTION:] WHY WHEN PEOPLE DIE THEY NEED TO OPEN THE
BODY?

Excerpt from a Micro-Moment Time-Line Interview: 1981
study of college student media
days._______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
Students in an introductory communications course at the University of
Washington School of Communications.

METHOD: Students were asked to write
a media diary for an entire day detailing for each waking hour the most
important media exposed to, what the exposure consisted of, what the situation
consisted of, and how the exposure helped or hurt. Helps and hurts were
described using Straight Line Helps/Hurts Chaining (see Example
#12).

CITATION: unpublished at this time

EXCERPT: What follows
below is an excerpt for three time periods of the media exposure of a 19 year
old male
freshman._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************TIME
PERIOD 1

Time

9:30 a.m.

Media

textbook

Content

political science text

Situation

sitting in class

Help chain

knew what was going on in class . . . this
helps me do better on exams . . . this helps me get better grades . . .
this means I keep my scholarship . . . this means I don't have to work . .
. this gives me more free time for school and plan.
<END>

METHOD: Each respondent
was asked to name their most recent TV show seen, newspaper (or magazine
article) read, book read, and conversation participated in. They were asked to
describe the content of the exposure and then to chain helps they saw as
emerging from the exposure.

CITATION: unpublished at this
time.

EXCERPT: What follows below is the complete interview with a 34
year old
female._______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************MOST
RECENT TELEVISION SHOW

CONTENT: Magazine
article about how to win friends.Helps chain: Made me aware of myself
. . . this showed me how to improve myself.
<END>_______________________________________________________________________

MOST RECENT CONVERSATION

CONTENT: With my
children regarding cleaning their rooms.Helps chain: It helped
because I told them what to do . . . this helped because there was no mess in
the other room . . . then I don't have to clean up . . . then I am less tired .
. . this makes me happier.
<END>_______________________________________________________________________

MOST RECENT BOOK

CONTENT: BibleHelps chain: It was food for thought . . . it
helps because then I know what to do . . . this gives me security and purpose .
. . this makes me happier and the world looks better.
<END>_______________________________________________________________________

Page 54

EXAMPLE #13

Excerpt from Complex Helps/Hurts Chaining: 1982 study of
college students reporting on recent class
lectures.______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
Students in an introductory communications course in the University of
Washington School of Communications.

METHOD: Students did
self-interviews. They were asked to detail the Time-Line steps from a recent
lecture they attended. Then for each step in the Time-Line, they chained both
helps and hurts. Chaining was done in such a way that a help or hurt could chain
to either a help or hurt or both.

CITATIONS: unpublished at this
time.

EXCERPT: What follows below is the helps/hurts chaining for one
time-line step in the interview of a 21 year old
senior.______________________________________________________________________************************************************************Step
1: The teacher said we had to write a term paper focusing on the relationship
between this class and our future jobs.

It helped because it will make the class
more interesting

It helped because it will relate to other classes I am
taking

It hurt because it's a big
assignment

This helped because no one likes to be bored.

<END>

This hurt because I always take on too much when I am interested.

This may help because it gives me another chance to control my
output.

<END>

This helps reduce the time I spend because things are connected.

This means I'll have more time for other things.

It may hurt because this makes it even more interesting and I may get
even more carried away.

<END>

This hurt because this is to be a gut course

But this can help me learn to handle heavier loads easier.

If I can do it I will be a lot happier.

<END>

I need to play more so I'll be more relaxed and happy.

<END>

I'll have more time with people.

I'll be happier and no so lonely.

<END>

Page 55

EXAMPLE #14

Excerpt from Close-ending Sense-Making Interview: 1983
study of college student information seeking and use in structurally and
situationally constrained
contexts.______________________________________________________________________SAMPLE:
162 University of Washington students enrolled in an introductory communications
course.

METHOD: Each student was asked to recall and describe their
sense-making in 12 different situations. The situations were all prescribed with
each one involving one of the 12 cells created by the intersections of the
values of three different variables (their own status relative to other persons
involved, the degree of openness of communication, and the nature of the
situational stop that led to question asking). The 12 situations
were:

DECISION

BEING LED

PROBLEMATIC

LO STATUS

HI STATUS

LO STATUS

HI STATUS

LO STATUS

HI STATUS

OPEN COMMUNICATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

CLOSED COMMUNICATION

7

8

9

10

11

12

_______________________________________________________________

For each situation, respondents were then asked to
rate (on 7-point scales):

1) the extent to which they had each of 18 different
questions in the situation;

2) the extent to which they had each of 13 different
helps in the situation;

3) their ability to deal with the situation;

4) the extent to which they experienced similar
situations in the past; and

5) the extent to which they saw themselves as having
power to change the situation.

Each respondent was also asked to describe in words why
he/she saw the situation as being of the type specified.

CITATIONS: Nilan
1983Nilan and Dervin 1983

EXCERPT: What follows is the complete
response record for one respondent (a 19 year old female freshman) on one of the
12 situations.

Page56

_______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************SITUATION:
problematic, lo status, closed communicationDESCRIPTION OF SITUATION: My
mother refused to let me buy a new bathing
suit._______________________________________________________________________The
situation was problematic because: There was nothing I could do about it. I
didn't have enough money of my own.The situation was lo status because:
She's my mother. She controls the money.The situation was closed
communication: She just wouldn't listen to reason.QUESTIONS ASKED:
<1 = not at all a Q of mine; 7 = very much a Q of mine.

a) How can I make this situation go away? 2b) How
can I avoid bad consequences? 5c) How can I do something that I want to?
7d) What will result from this situation? 5e) Are other people in
similar situations? 4f) Is this a good situation or a bad one? 1g) How
do other people see this situation, what are their motives/reasons/plans?
7h) Does anyone agree with me? 7i) What do I think or feel? 1j)
How can I decide among my options/alternatives? 1k) What are the different
ways of looking at this situation? 1l) What caused this situation? 5m)
Who and/or what is involved in this situation? 1n) Where can I get
encouragement, help, and/or support? 6o) What are my options/alternatives?
2p) Should I change my view of this situation? 1q) Should I change my
view of this situation related to each other? 3r) How can I get motivated?
1

_______________________________________________________________________*************************************************************HELPS
WANTED: (1=didn't want this help at all; 7=wanted this help very
much)

a) Being able to relax. 5b) Getting ideas,
pictures, understanding. 4c) Being able to plan ahead, decide what to do,
prepare. 2d) Getting started, being able to keep going, being motivated.
5e) Getting confirmation, reassurance, support. 7f) Getting out of a
bad situation. 7g) Accomplishing what you wanted, reaching your goal.
7h) Being able to take your mind off things. 5i) Getting connected to
other people, feeling less alone. 7j) Getting control of things. 6k)
Having things go easier, calmer. 4l) Being able to go on to other things,
leaving this behind. 3m) Avoiding a bad situation, not getting into one.
1

a) extent able to deal with situation. 3b) extent
experienced situation before. 7c) extent feel had power in situation.
1

Page 57

EXAMPLE #15

Excerpt from Message-Q/ing Interview and a Profile of
Message Q/ing by message users: 1983 study of college student reading of Seattle
Times leisure times coverage.

METHOD: As an optional class assignment,
students were given copies of the most recent week's leisure time coverage by
the Seattle Times (sections of sports, arts and culture, travel, and a general
entertainment section). Students read the sections, indicated at what points in
the coverage they had questions. For each question raised, they were asked
to:

a) Draw a / at the point in the coverage where they had
the question.

b) Rate the importance of the question on scale from 1
<not important> to 7 <very important>.

c) Indicate how they hoped an answer would help
them.

d) Indicate whether they got an incomplete, partial, or
complete answer from the story.

This method of having people indicate with a / where they
stopped in a message was developed by Carter (Carter, Ruggels, Jackson, and
Heffner 1983).

CITATIONS: Dervin and Martin 1983

EXCERPT: What
follows below is:

a) the first three questions listed for the first
article in the travel section by a 21 year old senior; and

____________________________________________________________________MEASURES
USED TO DESCRIBE SITUATIONS TO DATE HAVE INCLUDED:

SITUATION MOVEMENT STATE: the way in which the person
sees his/her movement through time-space being blocked (full copy of this
measure follows on next page).

SITUATION CLARITY: the extent to which the person sees
the situation as unclear, as fogged.

SITUATION EMBEDDEDNESS: the extent to which the person
sees the situation as related to other situations (a road intersecting with
other roads).

SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS: the extent to which the person
sees the situation as involving many others in his/her life.

SITUATION IMPORTANCE: the extent to which the person
sees the situation as important to self.

PAST EXPERIENCE: the extent to which the person sees
the situation as one he/she has experienced before.

ABILITY TO DEAL WITH: the extent to which the person
sees the situation as one he/she is able to deal with.

POWER TO CHANGE: the extent to which the person sees
the situation as one he/she has the power to change.

OPENNESS TO COMMUNICATION: the extent to which the
person sees the situation as one in which communication can flow both ways
between participants.

STATUS IN SITUATION: whether the person sees his/her
status in situation as higher than, lower than, or equal to others in the
situation.

DISTANCE INTO SITUATION: whether the person sees the
particular time-space moment as being at beginning, middle, or end of total
situation or some point in
between.________________________________________________________________________

Page 61

THE SITUATION MOVEMENT
STATESDifferent studies have treated these states in different ways,
sometimes eliminating some, sometimes combining some. The description below is
the most expanded
version.________________________________________________________________________

DECISION

Being at a point where you need to choose
between two or more roads that lie ahead.

PROBLEMATIC

Being dragged down a road not of your own
choosing.

SPIN-OUT

Not having a road.

WASH-OUT

Being on a road and suddenly having it
disappear.

BARRIER

Knowing where you want to go but someone or something
is blocking the way.

BEING LED

Following someone down a road because he/she knows
more and can show you the way.

WAITING

Spending time waiting for something in
particular.

PASSING TIME

Spending time without waiting for something in
particular.

OUT TO LUNCH

Tuning out.

OBSERVING

Watching without being concernd with movement.

MOVING

Seeing self as proceeding unblocked in any way ad
without need to observe.

Page 62

OVERVIEW #2

GAPS

_______________________________________________________________________Gaps
have been defined to date as the questions a person constructs as he/she moves
through time-space. Listed below are the different ways in which the qualitative
nature of questions have been described. Also included below are the set of
additional measures which have been used in different studies to examine in
detail the nature of information seeking for different kinds of
questions.________________________________________________________________________MEASURES
USED TO DESCRIBE THE QUALITATIVE NATURE OF QUESTIONS TO DATE HAVE
INCLUDED:

5W TEMPLATE: Assessing the question in terms of whether it asks
about a gap involving:

WHEN: the timing of events.

WHERE: the location of events.

WHY: the reasons and causes of events, the motives of
actors in the events.

HOW: the procedures or skills for moving from one
time-space to another.

WHO: the identification of others.

WHAT: the nature of objects, events, situation if
codable above.

TIME FOCUS TEMPLATE: Assessing the question in terms of
whether it asks about a gap involving:

PAST: a time-space point prior to the point at
which

PRESENT: the time-space point which is current
focus.

FUTURE: a time-space point that has not yet occurred
at

the time-space point which is the current
focus.

VALENCE FOCUS: Assessing the question in terms of whether
it asks about a gap involving:

BAD ROAD: an actual or potential bad road, something
not desired or wanted.

GOOD ROAD: an actual or potential good road, something
desired or wanted.

NEUTRAL ROAD: a question articulated neither in terms
of a bad road nor a good one.

ENTITY FOCUS: Assessing the question in terms of whether
it asks about a gap involving:

SELF: a gap where the major focus is self.

OTHER: a gap where the major focus is an
other.

OBJECT: a gap where the major focus is an
object.

SITUATION: a gap where the major focus is a process or
event.

Page 63

MOVEMENT FOCUS: Assessing the questions in terms of
whether it asks about a gap involving:

WHERE I WAS: a gap focusing on the past.

HOW I GOT HERE: a gap focusing on movement from past
to present.

WHERE I AM: a gap focusing on current
time-space.

HOW TO GET THERE: a gap focusing on movement from
present to future.

WHERE I WILL BE: a gap focusing on future
time-space.

DESCRIPTIVE FOCUS: Assessing the question in terms of the
kinds of gaps specific to a given research context. In the study of cancer
patient information needs, for example (Dervin, Nilan, Krenz, and Wittet 1982),
the major categories were:

* Nature of the problem* Extent of the
problem* Cause of the problem* Effects of problem on
family/friends/relationships* Nature of tests* Treatment
choices* Treatment process* Treatment effectiveness* The nature
of the treatment effects* Reasons for treatment effects* Timing of
treatment effects* Life effects of treatment* My thinking and
behavior* Medical personnel/institutions* Other patients and
people* Philosophical questions

For the study of blood donor (Dervin, Nilan, and
Jacobson 1982; Dervin, Jacobson, and Nilan 1983), the major categories
were:

CLOSE-ENDED LISTS: The templates above have usually
been applied using content analysis. Analysis has yielded a set of generic
questions for use in close-ended studies. This set of questions is listed in
EXAMPLE #14 in Appendix
A.________________________________________________________________________

Page 64

ADDITIONAL MEASURES USED TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF
INFORMATION SEEKING FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF QUESTIONS:

EASE OF ANSWERING: The extent to which the person
sees a question as easy, hard, or impossible to answer.

REASONS FOR EASE OF ANSWERING DIFFICULTY: The bases on
which the person judges a question as difficult or impossible to
answer.

QUESTION CONNECTEDNESS: The extent to which the person
sees a question as connected to other questions.

NATURE OF QUESTION CONNECTEDNESS: The kind of questions
the person sees as connected to a given question.

WHO WOULD ASK: The extent to which the person sees the
question as one that would be asked by none, a few, some, many, or all others
involved in similar situations.

IMPORTANCE OF ANSWERING: The extent to which the person
sees getting an answer to the question as important.

REASONS FOR IMPORTANCE: The bases on which the person
judges a question out loud or silently in his/her head.

ASKING OUT LOUD OR SILENTLY: Whether the person asked
the question out loud or silently in his/her head.

REASONS FOR NOT ASKING OUT LOUD: The bases on which the
person explains not getting an answer.

ANSWERING SUCCESS: Whether an answer was obtained at
the time the question was asked, later, or never.

REASONS FOR LACK OF ANSWERING SUCCESS: The bases on
which the person explains not getting an answer.

ANSWER COMPLETENESS: Whether the person saw the answer
as complete or partial.

REASONS FOR COMPLETENESS/PARTIALNESS: The bases on
which the person judged an answer as complete or partial.

ANSWER SOURCES: The places from which the person
reported getting answers (including self, others, media, and so
on).

GAP-BRIDGING STRATEGIES: The different strategies the
person used to bridge the gap, including thinking, reading, emoting,
comparing, and so on).

Page 65

OVERVIEW #3

USES

________________________________________________________________________Uses
of information answers have been defined as the helps or hurts the person saw
self as obtaining. While all the applications to date have been based on the
same theoretic core, different studies have used different major categories. The
most detailed list follows presented as helps. When used as hurts, the
categories are restated in terms of whether a help was used as hurts, the
categories are restated in terms of whether a help was not achieved and in terms
of whether a potential help turned out badly (i.e. didn't get a picture and got
a bad picture). Usually the categories are applied in content analysis. A
closed-ended version is presented in Example #14 in Appendix
A.________________________________________________________________________GOT
PICTURES/IDEAS/UNDERSTANDINGS: It is assumed that people need ideas in order to
move. This category focuses on getting new or revised understandings, sense,
pictures.________________________________________________________________________ABLE
TO PLAN: In order to move, one must have direction. this category includes being
able to decide, prepare, plan
ahead.________________________________________________________________________GOT
SKILLS: Moving frequently requires skills and this category taps being helped by
acquiring
them.________________________________________________________________________GOT
STARTED, GOT MOTIVATED: Moving sometimes requires a push to get started. This
category includes helps by getting motivated to start or finding ways to
start.________________________________________________________________________KEPT
GOING: Sometimes moving is in danger of stopping from lack of self motivation.
This category includes helps by getting motivated to keep
going.________________________________________________________________________GOT
CONTROL: Here help is needed to gain or regain
control.________________________________________________________________________THINGS
GOT CALMER, EASIER: Here the helps involve making the situation easier and/or
calmer.________________________________________________________________________GOT
OUT OF A BAD SITUATION: Sometimes the situation is bad and the help obtained is
getting out of
it.________________________________________________________________________REACHED
THE GOAL, ACCOMPLISHED THINGS: Here the helps involve achieving goals arriving
places.________________________________________________________________________WENT
ON TO OTHER THINGS: Being able to leave this situation behind and go on to other
things.________________________________________________________________________AVOIDED
A BAD SITUATION: Here the helps involve seeing a bad situation ahead and
avoiding
it.________________________________________________________________________TOOK
MIND OFF THINGS: Here the helps involve being able to put the situation out of
mind
temporarily________________________________________________________________________RELAXED,
RESTED: Here the helps involve some kind of rest, recuperation,
relaxation.________________________________________________________________________GOT
PLEASURE: Here the helps involve obtaining pleasure, happiness, joy,
satisfaction, or other pleased emotional
states.________________________________________________________________________GOT
SUPPORT, REASSURANCE, CONFIRMATION: Here the helps involve obtaining pleasure,
happiness, joy, satisfaction, or other pleased emotional
states.________________________________________________________________________GOT
CONNECTED TO OTHERS: Here the helps being connected with others, not feeling
lonely.________________________________________________________________________

Page 66

APPENDIX C

WHAT RESPONDENTS LEARNED

AND

WHAT INTERVIEWERS LEARNED

Page 67

________________________________________________________________________STATEMENTS
BY RESPONDENTS ON WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM PARTICIPATING IN A SENSE-MAKING
STUDY:

* It helped me to analyze the situation and without
anyone even telling me, I realized I was making a `mountain out of a
molehill.'

* I never realized that I have so many unanswered
questions in my mind when I am faced with a troublesome situation. I learned
that if I would sit down and think of what these questions are and try to
answer them, I will probably understand the problem better.

* I got a whole perspective on the situation and
learned that there were important elements I overlooked.

* I understood better what was really important and
what was irrelevant.

* I learned that it helps to talk about what you're
feeling.

* I felt like I was actually experiencing this
situation all over again, only this time I had all the time in the world to
really analyze what I was trying to accomplish.

* It was the first time that someone really was willing
to listen to my whole story. I can't thank you enough.

________________________________________________________________________STATEMENTS
BY INTERVIEWERS ON WHAT THEY LEARNED FROM PARTICIPATING IN A SENSE-MAKING
STUDY:

* I never realized how differently people see
situations from each other. I am astounded.

* The interviewing techniques, in particular the use of
"Neutral Questioning," created a `real' conversation between me and my
respondent [in this case, the interviewer's mother] instead of manipulating
one. It gave my respondent the opportunity to talk about herself, which anyone
can do for a long period of time. Everything my respondent said was `real." My
relationship with her has shown a miraculous improvement. We are able to
communicate our true feelings with each other as we use our Neutral
Questioning.

* I learned that other people (not just me) are
sometimes unsure of themselves when faced with a problem and that other people
are faced with situations they don't know how to deal with.

* When we were done, this perfect stranger and I wanted
to be friends. We now are.

* The interview took four hours but the respondent did
not want to stop. When we were done, he thanked me at least ten times. I felt
like I had contributed in a way I never had before.

* This has changed my whole way of interacting with
people. I can't believe the difference it
makes._________________________________________________________________

Page 68

NOTES

1) See all citations for Dervin and co-authors listed in
references. See also citations for Atwood, Nilan, and Wittet and their
co-authors. The book by Dervin, THE HUMAN SIDE OF INFORMATION: PERSPECTIVES FOR
COMMUNICATING is in preparation, with an expected publication date of 1989 by
Ablex Publishers. This paper is a brief version of much of the book. The author
owes a debt to the many people who have contributed to Sense-Making studies
since the beginning: Rita Atwood (at the University of California State
University - Fresno) and Michael Nilan (at Syracuse University) deserve mention
in particular. Others have included: Sylvia Harlock, Carol Garzona, tom
Jacobson, Colleen Kwan, Payson Hall, Michael Banister, Benson Fraser, Michael
Gabriel, Claudia Krenz, Scott Wittet, and Douglas Zweizig. in addition, input
from colleagues doing related work has been very helpful: John Bowes, Dick
Carter, Alex Edelstein, Keith Stamm, Ken Jackson at the University of
Washington; James Grunig at the University of Maryland; Patricia Dewdney at the
University of Western Ontario. Richard Carter, in particular, needs mention for
his theoretic work has been crucial to the development of Sense-Making.
Financial and moral support from several institutions has been vital, as well:
the U.S. Office of Education Bureau of Libraries and Learning Resources; the
Puget Sound Blood Center; the Graduate School Research Fund of the University of
Washington; the California State Library; the National Cancer Institute, the
Seattle Times, and the Safeco Insurance Companies. While each of these
institutions has provided support, the ideas and opinions expressed in this
paper are solely those of the author and are not to be construed as official
positions of any of the named organizations.

Dervin, B., D. Zweizig, M.
Banister, M. Gabriel, E. Hall, and C. Kwan. The development of strategies for
dealing with the information needs of urban residents, Phase I -- the citizen
study. Final report on Project No. L003d5JA to the Office of Libraries and
Learning Resources, U.S. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. (ED 136791)

Dervin, B., M. Nilan, C. Krenz,
and S. Wittet. When cancer strikes: how cancer patients make sense out of their
health situations. Report presented to Office of Cancer Communications, National
Cancer Institute on Procurement order #263-MD-102094-3, June
1982.

Dervin, B. and M. Martin. Sense-Making profiles of message Q/ing on
Seattle Times leisure time coverage. Report to the Seattle Times, in
preparation, 1983.

Zweizig, D. and B. Dervin. Public library use,
users, and uses: advances in knowledge of the characteristics and needs of the
adult clientele of American public libraries, ADVANCES IN LIBRARIANSHIP 7, 1977,
pp. 231-255.